Floor Statements

Mr. President, as in legislation session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 1615; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I am just going to respond briefly.

The bill that I asked to be called today for a vote was debated at length over a period of 17 years with numerous committee meetings. This is not an open-ended bill. There is a deadline. To qualify for it, one must have been in

the United States already for over a year. So it would not be a magnet for those who would like to come and take advantage of it in the future. It wouldn't apply to them, but it does apply to 1.8 million who would be eligible for citizenship.

I am sorry that there was an objection, but I will continue to work with Members on both sides of the aisle to resolve this. We owe it to Dalia and to many others like her who are waiting for Congress to act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate today passed the VA MISSION Act, a long overdue piece legislation of that would finally provide an overhaul of the healthcare system at the Department of Veterans Affairs that is desperately needed. The bill would

streamline and consolidate community care into a single comprehensive program, standardizing eligibility for this program and repealing the Choice program after 1 year.

The MISSION Act also includes a phasing in of an expanded Caregiver program, so that veterans of all eras can access this important benefit. This is an issue I have long worked on, having helped create the original Caregivers program at the VA. This expansion will likely help thousands of family caregivers.

In addition, the MISSION Act will help the VA better recruit quality healthcare professionals with academic and financial incentives, as well as help ensure access to care in rural and underserved areas.

I understand that there are some concerns about this legislation.

The asset and infrastructure review provision, which has been compared to the BRAC review of DOD facilities, is contentious. I joined Senator Manchin in efforts to pass a version of this without the AIR provision. I am disappointed that effort was blocked by our Republican colleagues, but I also appreciate the efforts of my Democratic colleagues in helping ensure safeguards in the bill around the AIR provision, so that any process includes coordination with and review by Congress, veterans service organizations, the public, and other stakeholders every step of the way.

I also recognize that there is a serious concern about privatization at the VA, a concern that is especially acute under this administration and given the fact that the VA lacks senior leadership.

Congress will need to ensure continued strong funding for the VA so that we are not sacrificing investments in VA infrastructure, direct patient care, medical research, and more in exchange for community care--which will be costly--under the MISSION Act.

We will need to continue to provide oversight during the process of selecting a VA Secretary, one who will balance the need of some veterans to access authorized private care with protecting the VA system. I look forward to meeting with the VA Secretary nominee to assess his qualifications on this and other matters soon.

It is easy for us Members of Congress to speak about this bill on the floor--to thank our veterans and their families for their service--but it is more meaningful, more important to do what we can through action.

Some of my proudest moments in Congress have included efforts to recognize, honor, and thank our veterans, but the very least we can do for our veterans is to ensure they get the care they need.

I have been working with my colleague, Senator Duckworth, to help ensure that veterans and their spouses at the Illinois Veterans Home at Quincy receive high quality care, because, for the past 3 years, IVH Quincy has been dealing with several Legionnaires' outbreaks, outbreaks that have sickened more than 65 and, sadly, killed 13.

It is unacceptable that 13 veterans died from contracting the Legionella bacteria before this Governor finally produced a comprehensive plan of action.

I have worked with and will continue to work with State and Federal officials to ensure that IVH Quincy has the technical and financial support it needs.

Let me close with this: The VA MISSION Act reflects this sentiment as well--too often, our servicemembers return home only to find themselves facing challenge after challenge, suffering from the physical and mental wounds of war. This bill will help ensure that we uphold the promise we have made, to provide the care, support, and respect our veterans have earned and deserve.

I want to thank my colleagues Senators Isakson and Tester for their good-faith efforts on this bill. I am pleased to join them and others in the Senate in supporting this legislation.

(At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, last Friday, America watched in horror as the news story broke of yet another school shooting, this time at Santa Fe High School in Texas.

Eight students and two teachers were fatally shot. Thirteen victims were wounded in another devastating tragedy. The alleged gunman was a student who came into the school with his parents' shotgun and handgun and used them to commit mass murder.

Of course, we grieve for the families and victims in Santa Fe, and, of course, we are grateful for first responders who ran toward the sound of gunfire. But let's be honest--the shooting in Santa Fe High was, by one count, the 22nd school shooting in America this year. We are in the 21st week of this year. We have had more than one school shooting a week in the United States of America. America's schoolchildren, sadly, now go to school expecting that there will be a shooter on the premises.

After the Santa Fe High School shooting, a reporter interviewed a student named Paige Curry at the school. The reporter asked: ``Was there a part of you that was like, this isn't real, this could not happen at my school?''

Paige Curry replied: ``There wasn't.''

When the reporter asked why so, she said: ``It's been happening everywhere. I've always felt it would eventually happen here too.''

Can you imagine we have reached this point in America if that is how many of our Nation's high schoolers think? Sadly, in Paige Curry's case, she was right. Her school was the target last week.

On Sunday, the New York Times posted an article titled ``New Reality for High School Students: Calculating the Risk of Getting Shot.''

The article discussed how students across America, from Iowa to Oklahoma, from Illinois to Mississippi, from Seattle to New York, are now forced to go through their day planning what they would do if the shooting starts in their school.

The article quotes one student, a sophomore in a New York high school, describing how vulnerable her desks were in each class where she sat.

She started making mental calculations about when the gunman came to the door whether she would be in the line of fire. She said her English class is the safest class for her each day because it is down a hallway, and it makes it hard for the shooter to find it, but her math class makes her particularly vulnerable because she said she sits in the second desk in the second row in a direct path from the door. The student, whose name is Emily Rubenstein, said:

It's like the front lines of a war. Being seated in front

of the classroom could be what makes you live and what makes

you die.

It is not just high schoolers who think this way; my 6-year-old granddaughter came home and told her mom recently that she had been warned that if there is a shooter in the school--she is a first- grader--if there is a shooter in the school, stay away from the windows and get down on the floor as quickly as possible.

Is there any sane person in America who thinks our kids should be going

through this? Is there any sane person in America who believes this is expected by the Second Amendment to our Bill of Rights?

Let's be clear. Addressing our Nation's epidemic of gun violence and school shootings should be a top priority. About 300 Americans are shot every day, a third of them fatally. Gun violence is a public health crisis. It is traumatizing an entire generation of America's kids.

In recent weeks, students across the country have marched in the streets, walked out of their classrooms to call on us--elected leaders--to step up and do something to reduce gun violence. The students are having an impact. At least 15 States have passed legislation to close gaps in their State gun laws since February 14, which was the date of the Parkland shooting in Florida. Four States-- Maryland, Florida, Vermont, and Washington--have passed bills to ban bump stocks. Congress has not. Seven States have passed bills to make it harder for domestic violence abusers to get guns--Kansas, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. Congress has not. Three States have passed red flag laws to temporarily remove guns from people who pose extreme risks--Florida, Maryland, and Vermont.

These State-level reforms are significant, and they are even happening in States such as Florida and Kansas, which have a reputation of being friendly to the gun lobby. I hope my State of Illinois will soon join the ranks of the States that have passed meaningful State- level gun measures this year. We came close in Illinois when the General Assembly passed a landmark, bipartisan bill to provide more accountability for gun dealers' sales. Governor Bruce Rauner unfortunately vetoed that bill, but the General Assembly is working hard to put a revised bill back on his desk.

In addition to these State law reforms, the student movement has brought major changes in corporate behavior. Major gun retailers, such as Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart, have voluntarily changed their sales practices. Companies such as Delta, United, Hertz, and Avis ended affinity relationships with the National Rifle Association. Institutional investors and financial companies are now pressuring the gun industry to change its behavior. These businesses understand that inaction is not an option. The student movement for gun safety has helped them realize this.

Unfortunately, it is extremely unlikely that this Congress will take any meaningful action this year to reduce gun violence in America. Why? Because President Trump and the Republican majority in Congress still won't push for any gun reforms that the gun lobby opposes. They are letting the gun lobby dictate Federal policy. That is a mistake. It is disgraceful. The gun lobby cares about one thing above all else: selling guns. They are not going to support any reforms that might reduce their sales.

On Sunday, the incoming president of the National Rifle Association, Oliver North--you may remember him from the Iran-Contra controversy-- blamed everything from video games to Ritalin for our epidemic of school shootings. He blamed everything except guns.

In fact, rather than support efforts to strengthen our gun laws, the gun lobby is gearing up for their last big push this year to urge Congress to weaken our gun laws even further. On April 16, the Washington Examiner reported that longtime NRA board member Grover Norquist ``said he has received assurance from the Republican leadership'' that Congress will put the NRA's concealed carry reciprocity bill on the agenda this year before the August recess.

Make no mistake--as appropriations bills and the Defense authorization bill move through Congress, the gun lobby and their allies are looking to weaken the gun laws on the books even more than they already have. America, keep your eye on Congress.

To all the students and young people across America who are asking for leadership when it comes to reducing gun violence, many of us hear you loud and clear, and we are not giving up. Congress may not get the job done this year when it comes to closing the enormous gaps in our gun laws, but this movement of young people is making incredible things happen in statehouses across America. They are rapidly becoming a major force for change in corporate behavior, and they are soon-to-be voters. This movement is getting results, and Congress is going to have to choose whom it will listen to--the students who are spending their class time thinking about whether their desks are in the line of fire or the gun lobbyists who want to further weaken gun laws on the books so they can make more gun sales.

I know where I stand. I am going to keep doing everything I can to put the safety of my granddaughter, my grandson, and kids in our neighborhoods across America ahead of the gun lobby's agenda of selling more guns. We may not be able to stop every shooting in our schools and in our streets, but if Congress takes meaningful action to close the gaps in our gun laws, we will save lives.

Madam President, I would like to bring the Senate's attention to an article that appeared recently in the New York Times entitled ``Education Department Unwinds Unit Investigating Fraud at For- Profits.'' That is right. Even while tens of thousands of students are still waiting for the Federal student loan discharges to which they are entitled under law because they were defrauded by for-profit colleges, such as Corinthian and ITT Tech, the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, is dismantling the enforcement unit that was set up to prevent future fraud.

Corinthian and ITT Tech have become the most infamous examples of for-profit college predatory practices, but they are hardly unique in the industry. I have often said on the floor of the Senate--and the numbers have changed slightly over the years--that you can tell the story of for-profit colleges and universities if you know two numbers. This will be on the final. The first number: 9 percent of all post- secondary students go to for-profit colleges and universities-- University of Phoenix, DeVry, Kaplan, similar universities. Nine percent go to for-profit colleges and universities, and 33 percent of all the federal student loan defaults are students from for-profit colleges and universities. Nine percent. Thirty-three percent. Why? Why is there such a dramatic difference between the percentage of students going to these schools and those who default on student debt, 33 percent of whom went to the same schools? There are two reasons. For- profit colleges and universities overcharge the students and produce a diploma that is virtually worthless when it comes to finding a job and paying off their student loan debt. That is the reality.

In the last 5 years, nearly every major for-profit college has been investigated or sued by more than one State attorney general and Federal agency for unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices. Thanks to Secretary DeVos, they don't need to worry about the Department of Education anymore. The writing has been on the wall for some time.

Last summer, Secretary DeVos hired former DeVry dean Julian Schmoke to be chief enforcement officer, where he would oversee the enforcement unit. I noted at the time that this was a particularly troubling decision given the enforcement unit's reported ongoing investigation into DeVry. The Times story confirmed my fears. They note that members of the enforcement unit have been marginalized, reassigned, and instructed to focus on other matters. What had expanded under President Obama to include around a dozen lawyers and investigators has now been reduced to three employees. According to the New York Times, the downsizing effectively killed investigations into several large for- profit colleges, including--you guessed it--DeVry.

In 2016, DeVry, which is based out of Chicago, agreed to pay $100 million to settle a lawsuit with the Federal Trade Commission related to misleading advertising when it came to college students. Around the same time, DeVry agreed to a limited settlement with the Department of Education, but an enforcement unit investigation continued. According to the Times, the investigation became a point of contention between the Department staff and the new Trump administration.

DeVry isn't the only former employer of a top DeVos adviser to escape Department scrutiny. The Times article also reports that the enforcement

unit investigations of Bridgepoint Education and Career Education Corporation have gone dark. The cops are being taken off the beat.

Bridgepoint--owner of the notorious Ashford University--has a long record of abuse. Last year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ordered the company to pay $30 million for deceptive acts and practices, including lying to students about their obligations under student loans. Bridgepoint is currently being sued by the California attorney general for defrauding and deceiving students. It is also facing investigations by State attorneys general in Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, and by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has also taken action to withdraw Ashford's eligibility to participate in the GI Bill because of its failure to comply with VA regulations. But, as the New York Times article points out, Bridgepoint has friends in high places when it comes to the Trump administration. A former consultant for Bridgepoint is now the Director of Strategic Communications at the White House.

Then there is Robert Eitel, who was hired by Secretary DeVos in February 2017 as a special assistant. For the first 9 weeks of his Department of Education tenure, Eitel was actually on an unpaid leave of absence from Bridgepoint. You heard that right--he was an employee of the Department of Education and continued as an employee of one of the most predatory for-profit colleges in this country at the same time. ABC News reports Eitel had a hand in dismantling the Department's borrower defense rule, which would have helped students who were defrauded by for-profit colleges like Ashford. How is that for a fox guarding the henhouse?

But we are not done yet. Don't forget about Career Education Corporation, which reports that it is currently under investigation by 23 States attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Illinois. In 2013, Career Education Corporation agreed to pay $10.25 million in a settlement with the New York attorney general over job placement rate inflation, an act of fraud. The company has been investigated by the FTC and the SEC. The Department of Education even placed one of its schools, American Intercontinental University, on heightened cash monitoring for concerns related to its administrative capability. But the enforcement unit's investigation into fraud by the company has come to a screeching halt, according to the New York Times. Who at the Department of Education is connected to Career Education Corporation? Well, in addition to working for Bridgepoint, Mr. Eitel was previously a top lawyer for that company, Career Education Corporation.

Then there is Diane Auer Jones, who was previously a senior vice president for Career Education Corporation and was hired by Secretary DeVos to be her senior adviser on postsecondary education. Also, the Department's recently confirmed general counsel, Carlos Muniz, previously provided consulting services to the same company.

The DeVos-orchestrated takeover of the Department of Education by the for-profit college industry is an embarrassment. It is an affront to students, their families, and to taxpayers. The Trump administration and Secretary DeVos are more concerned with protecting their rich buddies in the for-profit college industry than protecting America's students and their families. They don't seem to care that taxpayer dollars are being wasted as long as those dollars are going into their friends' pockets. It is shameful. It is scandalous. It has become routine in the U.S. Department of Education.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester), are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, in December 2012, the legendary Senator from Hawaii, Daniel Inouye, passed away. He was the longtime chairman and vice chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

By a twist of fate, I succeeded him in that role, and one of the most notable surprises to me was how much of the funding for the intelligence community came with that responsibility.

Together with my earlier service on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have learned that oversight of the secret agencies of our government is one of the most challenging and important roles of Congress.

It is a difficult task. Many of the issues involved in overseeing the CIA and other agencies are highly technical. Some issues present extraordinary challenges, where the security of our Nation must be balanced with the best interests of the American people. All of these matters are blanketed by the highest degree of secrecy.

Despite all of these oversight challenges, there are issues that are simply black and white. The starkest of these issues in the last two decades was the CIA's program to torture detainees at black sites throughout the world after 9/11.

After 9/11, many Americans thought long and hard about whether to torture terrorists to gain information to stop the next catastrophic attack. Implicit in that moral question is the assumption that we would capture the right people who might have essential intelligence to save American lives.

Last week, the New York Times published an article by a Libyan woman who says she was detained at a black site in Thailand.

Her story details how she and her husband were taken by masked men to a windowless room in Thailand. When moved, she was bound to a stretcher. She was deprived of sleep. She was struck in the abdomen.

The Bush administration used the euphemism ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' to describe this kind of abuse. Despite their words, this was torture, plain and simple.

The Libyan woman was halfway through a pregnancy at the time. She was then sent to Libya, where she spent weeks in another prison, with a crib in the room, as though she was being mocked for being with child. Her baby was born just after her release.

Last week, the highest levels of the British Government formally apologized for its role in the detention and treatment of her and her husband. No such apology has been forthcoming from the United States.

To understand the full dimensions of the CIA's so-called enhanced interrogation techniques is a difficult task. I commend Senator Feinstein and her staff for an exhaustive report, years in the making, that explains this torture program in great detail. The stress positions, the sleep deprivation, the ``walling,'' the slapping, and the waterboarding, it is all in there, unclassified, for the public to see.

Simply informing the public about what happened is not sufficient. These sad chapters in American history cannot be closed until there is accountability.

The nominee for the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gina Haspel, exercised a series of leadership positions that involved the CIA's use of these torture techniques. She was in a position to do something about it, had she believed this torture was wrong.

I note that many of her current and former colleagues have endorsed her nomination. They have spoken about her capabilities and effectiveness in positive terms. I do not know how many of them have a detailed understanding of her role in the CIA's torture program.

I met with Ms. Haspel at length and read documents that detailed her role in the torture program. She stated to me that, as a CIA officer, she had been advised by all the appropriate legal authorities that she could carry out her assigned duties and remain within the law.

That may be the case, but that does not explain how a person can see an individual be subjected to waterboarding, and the excruciating feeling that they are going to drown, and not question whether that legal guidance is just. Simply labelling conduct ``legal'' doesn't make it right.

In fact, we now know that the Bush administration twisted the law in its infamous torture report to justify the use of torture. The Justice Department's legal analysis was informed by false information from the CIA that techniques like waterboarding helped obtain lifesaving information that was otherwise unavailable.

But the decisive issue as to this nominee is much simpler.

The destruction of videotapes of those interrogation sessions remains

an act that is impossible to justify or ignore.

The CIA has provided documents for the review of all Senators that attempt to exonerate Ms. Haspel in the destruction of those tapes.

On December 7, 2007, the day after the destruction of these tapes was first reported, I asked then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to open a criminal investigation into the destruction of the tapes. This led to the so-called Durham investigation, led by Federal prosecutor John Durham.

Approximately 2 weeks ago, the Department of Justice for the first time provided only certain Members of the Senate with the results of that investigation, called the Durham Report. Few Senators even know that this report exists.

I am the vice chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which funds the CIA, and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Justice Department. I have asked to review the Durham Report, but the Trump administration has refused.

What does this report conclude? Does it have information that was not available during other reviews? The vast majority of Senators and the American public will never know before the vote is called on this nomination.

We have seen the CIA, which is tasked with providing intelligence, take a strong stand in favor of this nomination. I do not question the right of the administration to push for their appointees. But I do question whether our intelligence community is compromising its objectivity in lobbying the public in favor of the nomination. Given the secrecy over the Durham Report, I can only wonder if we are being told just one side of the story.

I continue to believe that the best interest of our Nation, our Government, and the CIA is to make a clean break from the odious history of torture.

In my time overseeing the CIA, I know that there are many experienced professionals, both inside the intelligence community and outside of it, that are able to lead this agency with great skill and without the history of association with waterboarding.

It is impossible to consider this nomination without thinking of our friend and colleague Senator John McCain.

Senator McCain is an American hero. He survived horrific torture as a POW in Vietnam and since then has spent almost five decades in honorable public service to the country he loves dearly.

While Gina Haspel was accommodating and covering up the torture program, Senator McCain was the first prominent Republican to speak out against this program, which was created by an administration of his own political party.

I was proud to work closely with Senator McCain on what has rightly become known as the McCain torture amendment, which made it clear that torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment are absolutely prohibited in America--no exceptions.

That amendment passed this body on an overwhelming 90-9 vote, despite a veto threat from the Bush administration.

Now, in the twilight of a great American life, Senator McCain has again spoken out against an administration of his own political party, urging us to oppose this nomination because of the nominee's complicity in torture. For that principled stand, Senator McCain has been subjected to crass insults by an administration that doesn't have the decency to properly and publicly apologize to the McCain family.

Ultimately, America's strength and influence abroad rests not just with its military might, but also with the power of its ideas and values, of which torture is the ultimate betrayal.

For these reasons, I oppose the nomination of Gina Haspel.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, before the Senate today is the question of whether we will continue to have free and open access to the internet in the United States of America.

Every day, millions of Americans log on. They rely on the internet to help their child with his or her homework assignment, help a father video call his mother, who may live three States away, or help a small business woman make a sale to a customer halfway across the world.

Currently, the people who use the internet in the United States and others like them are free to enjoy the internet as they wish. When you logged on this morning, you had the same access to the internet as every other American. There is no fear that some internet provider is going to step in and say: Wait a minute. We are going to slow down your service until you pay us more money or limit your access to certain apps and information based on whether you pay an additional fee. What a contrast that is to things like cable television. What package did you buy? How many channels are in there? How much access do you have? Are you going to pay the bill again next month? That is quite a bit different, isn't it, from our access to the internet?

Currently, users around the country are enjoying free access to an open and neutral internet, but that is all about to change. It is about to change because this new President and his new head of the Federal Communications Commission believe that our access to the internet should be for sale. In fact, this administration thinks everything ought to be for sale--public lands, our privacy, and in this case, our unfettered pathway to information.

Thanks to the leadership of Ed Markey of Massachusetts and many of my colleagues, we come today to discuss this fundamental issue. This is a rare day in the Senate. We are actually discussing an issue of substance on the floor. I welcome the visitors for this historic moment. We are preparing to vote tomorrow on whether the decision of the Trump administration's Federal Communications Commission, which ends net neutrality, is going to succeed or fail.

Luckily, we were joined by at least one Republican--I didn't look at the final rollcall--to move us forward in this debate. All the Democrats and at least one Republican voted for this, and we prevailed. Tomorrow, we hope to do the same. We hope it will be done on a bipartisan basis as well.

Follow this debate because my guess is that it is going to impact you and your life. If the Trump administration and the Federal Communications Commission have their way, they are going to change our access to the internet for every single family, every single business, every single doctor--the list goes on.

In December, the FCC voted to put the needs of companies ahead of consumers and to undo net neutrality in the United States. This great party on the other side of the aisle who talks about freedom--we want Americans to have freedom--wants to take away our freedom for access to the internet. Why? So somebody can buy parts of it and sell them back to us.

Under their new plan, the FCC would allow companies to freely block or slow down any American's access to websites based on the company's financial interests and would allow paid prioritization practices which create internet fast lanes and slow lanes based on who can afford to pay more for the service. What a change that is from what we have today.

Everyone has a favorite website they visit every day. In the morning, I race in here and get to the newspapers in Illinois, for example, to see what is going on in my home State. Well, what if one

day you typed in the address of that newspaper and nothing popped up or you were able to visit it, but it took twice as long to download it?

Remember those days when you used to deal with dial-up? Some of the young people in the Chamber are probably scratching their head and asking: What is dial-up all about? Well, those days did exist, and it was a much different world in the internet, which we could return to because of that FCC decision. This could be the reality under the Trump administration's Federal Communications Commission.

For internet providers, this means they can discriminate against specific content on the internet and be free to do so in the name of competition. For consumers, it means less service and higher costs. For entrepreneurs and small businesses, there is also a risk.

I had a meeting this morning with the Illinois Realtors. There were about 20 of them gathered in the hallway. I was in a committee hearing.

They said: The first item on our agenda is net neutrality.

I said: Realtors and net neutrality? Explain.

They said: Well, people are now looking for their homes on the internet. Perspective purchasers of homes do video tours of all of these different homes. We want our customers to have access to the internet so they can go shopping for their next home. We think it is good for American business.

So do I--but not the Federal Communications Commission. They disagree.

The internet has given the businesses not only access to customers but a global reach and ability to compete with companies large and small. Success isn't determined on how rich your business is. It is how good your product is. If our country wants to grow its economy and continue to lead the world in innovation, we cannot allow the internet to become a place where businesses impose a pay-to-play scenario.

I can't understand how the other party--this party of individualism and freedom--wants to take this freedom away from the American people.

If the FCC's harmful new plan is allowed to take effect, consumers, businesses, and hard-working families will be hurt. It is no wonder that public support for net neutrality is overwhelming. America gets it. The Federal Communications Commission and the President may not, but America understands this. All over the country, students, teachers, businesses, individuals, and families, are all making their voices heard, and I encourage them to continue to do so.

We need more Republicans to stand up for your freedom. We need more Republican Senators to join us in what should be a strong, bipartisan effort.

The Federal Communications Commission has announced that its radical plan to end net neutrality will take effect next month--next month-- unless Congress stops it.

We are starting today with this vote in the Senate. We will finish it tomorrow. Then, if we are successful, it goes across the Rotunda to the House. If they do nothing, your right to the internet is going to be destroyed.

Today every Senator will have a chance to tell their constituents exactly where they stood on this issue of personal freedom--whether content on the internet should be treated equally and consumer access be a matter of how much you can pay. I think the answer is obvious, and so do the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Will the Republican Party please join us in a bipartisan effort to stand up for something that Americans across the board support?

I urge my colleagues to support the concept of net neutrality and the CRA resolution before the Senate.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, a little later this afternoon, we are going to have votes on the confirmation of two judges to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The vote will be on the confirmation of Amy St. Eve and Michael Scudder to fill these Illinois seats. They are two outstanding nominees, and I am proud to support both of them.